It's impossible to keep an operation that big under wraps. I can't say I have a problem with the US spying on other countries. I do have a major problem with a wasteful, counterproductive grab bag approach that relies on 20ish high school dropouts.

Maybe you've heard that they have a Narco-Terrorist insurgency in Mexico? They've had more people killed than the US lost in Vietnam ( 60,000+). The violence spills over the border, and the American side of the border isn't safe in many places for miles into the US. The drugs don't spill over, they flow in. So yes, the US might have a reason or two to have an idea about what is going on in Mexico.

And is the Mexican President personally involved? If not then why spy on his email? If you want some info from him then ask. This is what friends do.

And by the way, did you hear that some of the 9-11 hijackers were from a terrorist cell in Hamburg Germany [bbc.co.uk]? Maybe there is a reason for the US to keep an eye on things in Europe as well.

Most countries have a potential terrorist or two, this doesn't justify spying on everyone. A 9/11 style attack can never happen again due to the change in flight passenger knowledge, it's done and there's no point guarding against the use of commercial aircraft as weapons any further.

You have to remember, all people are terrorists until proven otherwise. The NSA is doing its best to wade through the phone calls but they need more funding. So fund the NSA, you don't want the terrorists to win...do you?

For the NSA, an Nth degree connection is most likely enough.As in: your number has in the past called some number, that was also called by a number which had been in contact with a number which is suspected to have once been used by someone who's name is on one of their lists.This kind of 'meta-information' is exactly what they are fishing for after all.

I am more interested in how they got 'some' with no terrorist connections. Maybe only brand new phone numbers on their first use?

Millions of conversations & "some" are not related to terrorists !Millions is at least 2 millions or 66 666/day..."Some" is at most "half" so there where apparently 33 333 conversations related to terrorist every day... shudder....So assuming that all these bad guys where plotting like crazy, every day, and always the same, that still means that with 50 conversations per day the NSA should have found out at least 600 "new" terrorist...nb: there are about 60 000 people in jail in France, so at the very least 1% is something like "large"....

So Where are they ??? are they hiding under my table... or in some bush on my way home.... shudder shudder....

Or should it read, some conversations where related to terrorism...

In practice, when the official communication says: we looked at all these people and some where innocent... I find it much more scary thanwe unfortunately looked at a lot of innocent people but we did find "some" very bad people...

The fact that the communication days "some where innocent" really gives the impression that they are again trying to bamboozle us...

What makes you assume that "some" is "at most half"? Any logician will tell you that "some" only technically means "at least one". The statement "some ravens are black" is absolutely true - I am stating only that that at least one raven is black, and that I am not claiming that non-black ravens don't exist. But by the same logic I can make the equally true statement that "some apples are purple" - I have seen a purple apple, therefore the statement is true.

As such the claim that "some calls are not related to terrorists" is essentially information-free. It means only that at least one call was not related - which is a given granted that surveillance at this scale can not be 100% accurately targeted. It significantly does not make any claim whatsoever that even one of those monitored calls actually was terrorist-related.

You are technicaly right, but if you use logic in order to tell things that are true but do sound very different from what they actually are you are doing weaseling with weasel word.

As in "our prices are the lowest we ever did* (* on selected products)" sounds cheap but just means that you are offloading some unsaleable junk..Or "Blue Sky initiative" sounds ecological, it just means that you called some activity "blue sky initiative"

Some... could mean "all of them" but then it would be natural and honest t

This is sort of off topic but I heard a comment by Ariana Huffington in a debate on whether the US two party system is detrimental. At some point, the debate turned to job creation and she made the point that America currently ranks 10th in upward mobility, behind France. Then she said something like "The US being behind France in upward mobility is like France being behind the US in croissants and afternoon sex."

God knows, if there's anyone I want protecting from it's the French. Sir Humphrey Appleby had it right. They may be our allies now, but for most of the last 1,000 years they've been our enemies. I'd vote for an increase of surveillance on the French.

People have "known" (ie suspected) for years that the federal government was doing something like this. With all the revelations that have been released recently, why are people so surprised when another comes out? And this may have been started by the previous administration (or the one before that) but the current administration knew about it. I am kinda surprised there has not been a Congressional hearing about this yet.

American's "know" a lot of things, but never seem to have the time to take any action to right the wrongs perpetrated on them (and others around the world). Taking no action means agreement. Therefore, why do Americans agree that spending massive amounts of taxpayer monies on illegal spying operations is a Good Thing(tm)? Are you that paranoid and fearful that someone will "get you?" Does this illegal spying help you sleep soundly at night? What? Please explain.

Washington's biggest European critic -- France -- also has a serious wiretapping habit, as Marc Perelman points out in Foreign Policy: "In addition to judicially ordered taps there are also 'administrative wiretaps' decided by security agencies under the control of the government."

which is not a valid argument for any NSA actions against a friendly country.

There is no such thing as a friendly foreign country as far as intelligence services are concerned. While I (and probably you) do not and should not approve of the NSA's actions, we also should not be even a tiny bit surprised by them and you can be quite sure France is not surprised despite what their government might claim. Allies can become enemies and even countries on good terms can harbor dangerous individuals - sometimes unknowingly. The US and Canada have the longest undefended border in the world but I guarantee you that they do spy on each other and that each has developed invasion/defense plans against the other just in case. Intelligence services like the CIA and NSA look for information wherever it can be found. If that happens to be a "friendly" nation or even their own citizens then so be it. This is why it is SO important to have meaningful oversight by civilian authorities. Something which we are sorely lacking at the present time.

Countries that complain about NSA spying are really just putting on a show for their voting public. They have their own intelligence services and you can be 100% certain they are spying on the US and you can also be 100% sure that they knew or at least suspected the NSA spying already. Frankly the ONLY thing that would surprise me is if they were not trying to replicate to some degree what the US is doing.

Yes, just in case [wikipedia.org] for both sides [wikipedia.org]. Doesn't mean the plans are expected to be used but you can be certain that the US military has at some point developed plans for attacking and defending against every country in the world. Just in case.

The French are not complaining about "foreign intelligence" they first and foremost defending their citizens rights. NSA tapped the whole frigging country including underwater sea cables. They didn't spy on specific strategic interests but every damn citizens of france and didn't even bother to work through the french security establishment that already cooperates fully with NSA. NSA managed to piss of the french by fucking them over multiple times at once.

The reality is, they'd do the same if they had the capabilities to do so.

That line of thought can justify just about any imaginable act of aggression. We can summary execute the citizens of any other country - since we have the capability, we can nuke anyone we feel like - they'd do it first if they could, etc. Complete breakdown of international law and agreements and the right of might.

Well, guess what US, the world is changing fast and it's just a matter of decades until the mighty will be in Asia. You won't like living in the world you've helped create.

Agreed. Besides, the conspiracy theorist in my head thinks a lot of this is faux outrage on the part of the French government. I'm willing to bet that similar to the UK, the NSA is sharing all the information they're getting from the French taps with the DCRI (or other French intelligence service). Sort of reminds me of the Pakistani drone strikes. Outraged in public but definitely working with the US behind closed doors.

. Besides, the conspiracy theorist in my head thinks a lot of this is faux outrage on the part of the French government. I'm willing to bet that similar to the UK, the NSA is sharing all the information they're getting from the French taps with the DCRI (or other French intelligence service).

Such a conspiracy theory does make a lot of sense. Consider that the main PR approach in the US is to say that the intel agencies can't (legally;-) spy on US citizens; they're only (legally;-) allowed to spy on foreigners. This is just what they're accused of doing in this case, and it's legal under US law.

And to the French government, it's really useful. They can act outraged in public, while listening to their copies of the recordings, and be confident that nothing can be done (legally;-) against it because the NSA is beyond the reach of any French laws or courts.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me, at least from the viewpoint of the US and French governments. And in both countries, the "people" don't matter, because both governments can satisfy them with their own PR based on this story.

for many conservative, trading, countries usa is the extreme and has been for several decades - dictating who we can trade and with what tech(in the past limiting our trade with russia/ussr, for example, because our tech was too good for them).

if we're overrun by extremists then that probably would be the extremists that don't want aid(or rules) who would be in charge. heck, we'd probably go as refugees to another european country since going as refugees to usa doesn't seem to be working for anyone lately.

Let's get real. The worst christians is Westboro Baptist Church and what do they do? Protest funerals and tell everyone how gay lovers will burn in hell. Let's try an experiment: Paint Jesus in Feces in a Christian country and see what the worst thing that will happen to you as a result? Next, pain Mohammed in feces and see what will happen to you in a Muslim country. Or even a European one (death threats anyone)?

Westboro Baptist is worse than Christian terrorist Timothy McVeigh? Or the people who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors? And if you want I can continue listing other domestic terrorism by Christians.

Timothy McVeigh was raised as a Roman Catholic, but later claimed to be agnostic [wikipedia.org]. There is no evidence that there was any religious motivation for his actions.

And don't even try the "they aren't true Christians" nonsense.

You are equating far less than 1% of Christians with 80% or more of Muslims. 90% of Pakistani Muslims think people should be executed for blasphemy. 40% of Pakistani Muslims feel that the 10% who are willing to tolerate blasphemy should also be executed. This is not theoretical. Salmaan Taseer [wikipedia.org], a Pakistani politician was murdered, not for blasphemy, but merely for advocating the abolition of the death penalty for blasphemy. There was widespread approval of his murder. How many Christians support abortion clinic bombers?

Er... then why did 'ol Tim McV hang out with that wacked out christian identity group? To convert them to agnostism? I think not.

In America, if you are Muslim and spew rhetoric against the State, you are arrested, "tried", and sent to jail. In the self-same America, if you are a Christian and spew rhetoric against the State, you are allowed to continue based on your 1st amendment rights. So much for equal application of the American ideal...

Westboro Baptist is worse than Christian terrorist Timothy McVeigh?

Timothy McVeigh was raised as a Roman Catholic, but later claimed to be agnostic [wikipedia.org]. There is no evidence that there was any religious motivation for his actions.

A random dictionary's definition of christian: [learnersdictionary.com]a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ

I would *add* that "believing" is not enough, and practicing is where the true follower is...But Jesus gave his own litmus test, so why must you and I try to define "true" christian and waste time with the "no true scottsman fallacy [wikipedia.org]": "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another [biblehub.com]" (John 13:35)There is no "love" in blowing people up and doing what some of these churches are individually doing to blemish the name of who they claim to follow. Jesus knew this about the wolves entering the flock. See Acts 20:29 [biblegateway.com]. The net result? false doctrine and interpretation create a rift between people and God.

Are you telling me that WBC is worse than those "christians" bombing clinics, killing doctors, spread hate and starts war like bush just because "god told me"?

Have you even seen some of those christians? Muslims are no worse than christians, just watch africa, and see what the christian militias such as sudanese christian militias roaming around and raping , LRA (congo, heard of kony?) and other places, or do you really think that every fucking militia in africa is muslim or animist? There is one major religion in Africa and it's christianity, look at south africa, not only were they christian but they also used bible verses to support their apartheid.

So we are comparing Christians who killed for their Gods the religious, and the Leaders who killed for their Country Atheists? So does that make the US fall into the former or the latter with its wars...

That article makes no sense what so ever. Atheists do not believe in a god, but the article claims that communists believe their leader is a god, and there for they are atheists.

Actually the more I read the article the more ridiculous it gets. They claim that atheists and communist have no moral code, which is a blatantly false logical fallacy.

When you have an article that backs up your claim that is not almost entirely over generalizations come talk to me.

This article once again makes false equivalences. The deaths from the Crusades were made directly because of religious reasons; the Crusades themselves were inherently religious. On the other hand, many, many deaths at the hands of Stalin or Mao had absolutely nothing to do with their atheism. If you want to play that game, then you'd have to tally up all the murders and wars of each and every single country outside of possibly the last fifty years under "religious" because their leaders or perpetrators were religious.

WBC are mostly harmless. Much as I hate to defend them, they have always been non-violent protesters - and to keep their cool is quite an achievement given the type of (well-earned) abuse that has been directed at them. I think it helps that they have a real persecution complex going, so the more hated they are the more they feel justified in their beliefs.

WBC are mostly harmless. Much as I hate to defend them, they have always been non-violent protesters - and to keep their cool is quite an achievement given the type of (well-earned) abuse that has been directed at them. I think it helps that they have a real persecution complex going, so the more hated they are the more they feel justified in their beliefs.

They do have some more subtle (but quite illegal) tactics up their sleeves. A friend of mine got investigated by the cops after an encounter with the Phelpsies. His sister was riding shotgun and shouted some of that well-earned abuse at them. They took down his (partial) license number and (mostly correct) paint color and reported him for a hit-and-run. The cops paid a visit and examined his car. Luckily, he didn't have any body damage, so that was the extent of the investigation . ..

Let's get real. The worst christians is Westboro Baptist Church and what do they do? Protest funerals and tell everyone how gay lovers will burn in hell. Let's try an experiment: Paint Jesus in Feces in a Christian country and see what the worst thing that will happen to you as a result? Next, pain Mohammed in feces and see what will happen to you in a Muslim country. Or even a European one (death threats anyone)?

Oh wait, you were trying to make a lame attempt at equating the two.

WBC is the most vocally odious, but there are many groups that have been much, much worse. Let's start with pretty much the entire white supremacist movement. Aryan Nations considered themselves a (quote) "White Christian Separatist" organization. That's right, these are literally Nazis we're talking about. (How often can someone play the Nazi Card on the Internet while actually stating an objective fact, eh?) Then there are splinter groups like the Louisiana-based "Church of the Sons of Yahweh" (that'

Let's get real. The worst christians is Westboro Baptist Church and what do they do? Protest funerals and tell everyone how gay lovers will burn in hell. Let's try an experiment: Paint Jesus in Feces in a Christian country and see what the worst thing that will happen to you as a result? Next, pain Mohammed in feces and see what will happen to you in a Muslim country. Or even a European one (death threats anyone)?

> One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

I think he's saying that while you may get death threats in the States, in a Muslim country you wouldn't live long enough to get death threats. In the US, such a painting is would be protected speech. In Muslim countries, this would be a government mandated death penalty.

It's their job to a) not blanket-grab millions of phone users of data in a random bug hunt but to apply "intelligence" and b) not to get caught doing so. They are spies. This is just terribly amateur. If you don't see that, then you're really missing the biggest thing - that's the problem more than ANYTHING else. So fucking amateur that it makes you look like a bunch of incompetents.

However, on a similar note, if you found out that the French authorities had a complete copy of your phone records which got publicly leaked (WikiLeaks-style, say), would you not be pissed? It could easily destroy your career, your life, your relationships, etc. (think: This might include the phone numbers of sex chat lines, and you might be a politician / teacher - nothing ILLEGAL in doing that, but would you want that being public knowledge after illegal collection of that data by a foreign entity not being held subject to the laws of YOUR country?).

Now think that that might include, say, phone calls made by the US ambassador to France while he was in the US. Now we're into REALLY serious shit that you can't even get in a court of law in the country.

What's more shocking is NOT that this data exists, or has been abused for purposes far beyond their remit, nor that they are that incompetent that it gets found out so easily (but that's pretty damning), but that - in order to "protect" the US, they have now incurred the wrath of quite a number of other countries allied to them and - should it come out into the public media that certain things were captured "accidentally" into that data - could well be the trigger to an international incident (read: War).

What if you found that a US ally like, say, the UK had complete records of every US citizen that the US did not give them (because a law prevents the US from doing so, and they thought it was just a blind hunt without purpose, and couldn't see why the UK would need that so they blocked it) but they stole in other ways and then managed to publish/leak to a newspaper in the UK?

And what if that info contained things like the phone records of major political figures? Or the phone calls made from Guantanamo Bay? Or what numbers were dialled in the Washington DC area when the UK queried why it join in fighting in the Middle East (or whatever?). It's not WHAT specifically was collected - it was why it was collected and what COULD be inside that that could easily trigger an international incident. And it has. And will continue to do so while things like this come out.

Fact is, there's being a spy - and that means NOT GETTING CAUGHT - and there's just going on a blind hunt through data "because you can" against the laws of a country you are allied to (who would have given you what you wanted if you'd asked).

Just how much co-operation do you think you will see next time you're trying to track a terrorist cell through France? It's counter-productive, and BAD SPYING. TERRIBLE SPYING. CRAP SPYING. And it's pissing off your allies.

It's their job to a) not blanket-grab millions of phone users of data in a random bug hunt but to apply "intelligence" and b) not to get caught doing so.

Actually, NSA's mandate is Signals Intelligence. Which pretty much means grabbing everything they can, then sorting it for utility.

Also, "intelligence" in the context of an intelligence agency (NSA, GCHQ, etc) has NOTHING to do with common usage of the word - it means the information they are gathering, or trying to.

However, on a similar note, if you found out that the French authorities had a complete copy of your phone records which got publicly leaked (WikiLeaks-style, say), would you not be pissed?

Surely would. However, absent me being a French citizen, it would never occur to me to scream "The French did something illegal!!!!", since FOREIGN intelligence gathering isn't illegal for any country.

Unless, of course, the actual intelligence gatherers are caught in the act of foreign soil. No, finding out they did it a year or two after the fact, with no names of the people doing the actual work, doesn't leave you much room for even a show trial, though "Viewing with Alarm" might be something you'd do to pacify your population when it is revealed that you can't protect your own people from foreign spying.

Which last seems to be what the French are trying for.

Just how much co-operation do you think you will see next time you're trying to track a terrorist cell through France?

I would never expect ANY cooperation from the French in regards to terrorism. The only interest they have is that it not be done against French citizens or businesses. They don't give a rat's ass about any other terrorism....

They probably do. The addition of the NSA stealing their personal and business data doesn't make the Chinese and Russians leave them alone, it just makes it worse. If by allowing the NSA to steal they could force the Chinese and Russians to stop, they probably would.

Illegal actions taken by our government against foreigners, causing damage to our countries reputation, its relations, and indeed sparking violent blowback as well, is one of the major dangers that Americans face in todays world. Ignoring or avoiding those problems is pointless.

It seems to me you are not so much pro-Western as you are anti-everything else. Your first post in this thread is entirely typical, judging from your post history. Xenophobe is the word that comes to my mind. You are welcome to your opinion but you might reconsider just how narrowminded it makes you seem.

Yes, Snowden and Greenwald have a clear agenda. And it is the libertarian view that government is bad and should be defunded.

Please cite where either of them has said that, as opposed to abiding by the Constitution. If you think that libertarians are the only ones who respect that document, you couldn't be more wrong. If you think that defunding the government would help, I'll remind you that the NSA is but a tiny part of the federal budget. Eliminate the federal income tax and they'd still have plenty of money for it.

...that the NSA managed to intercept more calls of French citizens.......than the French government.

The French government, among other parties, will be really enraged if it's revealed that they were willing accomplices. Or even if they just knew about it and kept it quiet based on some "understanding" with the US and British.